sheep snorter:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and once America has an Army, the second amendment shall be abolished.

/Unless you are wetting your pants thinking the big black man is gonna come to your home in his big black SUV and break your window and come on in and take it from you, well you might be paranoid.//Sarcasm. How does it work.

i am waiting for one of these hollywood libs to start asking the studios to voluntarily stop showing gun violence in the movies as a way to influence our gun culture (remember smoking used to be cool too and being gay used to be negatively depicted too).

tenpoundsofcheese:i am waiting for one of these hollywood libs to start asking the studios to voluntarily stop showing gun violence in the movies as a way to influence our gun culture (remember smoking used to be cool too and being gay used to be negatively depicted too).

The Name:It should be repealed. Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution. The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

tenpoundsofcheese:i am waiting for one of these hollywood libs to start asking the studios to voluntarily stop showing gun violence in the movies as a way to influence our gun culture (remember smoking used to be cool too and being gay used to be negatively depicted too).

Your knee jerk is showing.

Looks like you missed the other "hollywood lib" in the "story" who said Mohr was stupid.

Mrbogey:AdolfOliverPanties: I hope Wayne LaPierre is killed with a gun. Not soon; I hope he lives a normal lifespan. But I hope that is the way his life ends; violently, with him shiatting himself in fear.

tenpoundsofcheese:i am waiting for one of these hollywood libs to start asking the studios to voluntarily stop showing gun violence in the movies as a way to influence our gun culture (remember smoking used to be cool too and being gay used to be negatively depicted too).

Sigourney Weaver successfully had all guns removed from the Alien 3 script because she was so against them. Otherwise she wouldn't have done the movie, and the studio was willing to do that because she was such a huge draw for the franchise.

Dimensio:The Name: It should be repealed. Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution. The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

USP .45:sheep snorter: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and once America has an Army, the second amendment shall be abolished.

Centralized authority and a government monopoly on force. Let me guess, you claim to be a "liberal" right? You're doing it wrong.

I like how the Conservative mantra seems to be:"Worries about goverment authority and monopoly on force" yet also "continually votes for the guys that insists that a huge chunk of our GDP is spent on the governement controlled military"

The Name:Dimensio: The Name: It should be repealed. Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution. The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

I've often wondered that very thing. What exactly does "Arms" mean? The militia is necessary for a free state, but free from what? Free from the threat of foreign governments? Free from the threat of its own? Well, shouldn't the "Arms" we're permitted to carry be in scope sufficient to match a challenge by one and/or the other? What exactly is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment and how does it relate to the current state of affairs?

I've often wondered that very thing. What exactly does "Arms" mean? The militia is necessary for a free state, but free from what? Free from the threat of foreign governments? Free from the threat of its own? Well, shouldn't the "Arms" we're permitted to carry be in scope sufficient to match a challenge by one and/or the other? What exactly is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment and how does it relate to the current state of affairs? And where in the hell was I?

I've often wondered that very thing. What exactly does "Arms" mean? The militia is necessary for a free state, but free from what? Free from the threat of foreign governments? Free from the threat of its own? Well, shouldn't the "Arms" we're permitted to carry be in scope sufficient to match a challenge by one and/or the other? What exactly is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment and how does it relate to the current state of affairs?

If only that hadn't been discussed about 500 times since December right here on Fark and a million times elsewhere on the 'net...

Tomahawk513:I've often wondered that very thing. What exactly does "Arms" mean? The militia is necessary for a free state, but free from what? Free from the threat of foreign governments? Free from the threat of its own? Well, shouldn't the "Arms" we're permitted to carry be in scope sufficient to match a challenge by one and/or the other? What exactly is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment and how does it relate to the current state of affairs?

Depends on who is interpreting it. I see it as citizens can take up arms to defend the country against an outside enemy. This is in place of a standing army. It says nothing about self-defense and really should be ineffective now that we have standing military forces.

The 2nd Amendment might seem farking retarded now that the government and its citizens aren't evenly matched with muskets anymore but people still have their delusions that if the gov't gets too much out of control, we'll take take 'em out. And I have a few guns myself and repealing an entire amendment isn't going to do anything (except the one about booze).

Listen, I know liberals love to harp on about "background checks" and "waiting periods" and stuff when it comes to gun control. It lets them feel tough without doing something that isn't effective, and unfortunately it's going to have the side effect of losing seats in the midwest and southeast. In Iowa, you can get elected championing some pretty liberal stuff, but to touch the guns is to touch the third rail in most of the midwest.

There would have to be a very, VERY consistent messaging campaign to try and differentiate the guns to be banned from Grandpa's pheasant hunting 20 ga. shotgun in order to even attempt it. And the side that needs it didn't have the cohesion to message the Affordable Care Act effectively, and I don't think they can do it here.

Mind you, I'm a red-stater in favor of the background checks. Maybe even a waiting period for tactical equipment.

snowshovel:I like how the Conservative mantra seems to be:"Worries about goverment authority and monopoly on force" yet also "continually votes for the guys that insists that a huge chunk of our GDP is spent on the governement controlled military"

Tell me more about how the framers of our government didn't design it to avoid too much centralized authority and a monopoly on force. I'd love to hear more about how we've been doing it all wrong this whole time.

BarrRepublican:Listen, I know liberals love to harp on about "background checks" and "waiting periods" and stuff when it comes to gun control. It lets them feel tough without doing something that isn't effective, and unfortunately it's going to have the side effect of losing seats in the midwest and southeast. In Iowa, you can get elected championing some pretty liberal stuff, but to touch the guns is to touch the third rail in most of the midwest.

There would have to be a very, VERY consistent messaging campaign to try and differentiate the guns to be banned from Grandpa's pheasant hunting 20 ga. shotgun in order to even attempt it. And the side that needs it didn't have the cohesion to message the Affordable Care Act effectively, and I don't think they can do it here.

Mind you, I'm a red-stater in favor of the background checks. Maybe even a waiting period for tactical equipment.

If it's not effective, why are you in favor of it? Because you want to feel tough?

Mugato:The 2nd Amendment might seem farking retarded now that the government and its citizens aren't evenly matched with muskets anymore but people still have their delusions that if the gov't gets too much out of control, we'll take take 'em out. And I have a few guns myself and repealing an entire amendment isn't going to do anything (except the one about booze).

Hint: when you have to resort to violent revolution, you're not going to follow the laws of the government you're trying to bring down in the first place.

mongbiohazard:tenpoundsofcheese: i am waiting for one of these hollywood libs to start asking the studios to voluntarily stop showing gun violence in the movies as a way to influence our gun culture (remember smoking used to be cool too and being gay used to be negatively depicted too).

Your knee jerk is showing.

Looks like you missed the other "hollywood lib" in the "story" who said Mohr was stupid.

Haha! Adam Baldwin is as far away from a Hollywood lib as you can get.

Lionel Mandrake:BarrRepublican: Listen, I know liberals love to harp on about "background checks" and "waiting periods" and stuff when it comes to gun control. It lets them feel tough without doing something that isn't effective, and unfortunately it's going to have the side effect of losing seats in the midwest and southeast. In Iowa, you can get elected championing some pretty liberal stuff, but to touch the guns is to touch the third rail in most of the midwest.

There would have to be a very, VERY consistent messaging campaign to try and differentiate the guns to be banned from Grandpa's pheasant hunting 20 ga. shotgun in order to even attempt it. And the side that needs it didn't have the cohesion to message the Affordable Care Act effectively, and I don't think they can do it here.

Mind you, I'm a red-stater in favor of the background checks. Maybe even a waiting period for tactical equipment.

If it's not effective, why are you in favor of it? Because you want to feel tough?

Sorry, ever have that moment where you think one thing but write something completely different?

Replace the stuff in the top line with "pistol grips" and "7 round magazines."

scottydoesntknow:tenpoundsofcheese: i am waiting for one of these hollywood libs to start asking the studios to voluntarily stop showing gun violence in the movies as a way to influence our gun culture (remember smoking used to be cool too and being gay used to be negatively depicted too).

Sigourney Weaver successfully had all guns removed from the Alien 3 script because she was so against them. Otherwise she wouldn't have done the movie, and the studio was willing to do that because she was such a huge draw for the franchise.

We all know how well that turned out.

I don't think that movie would have been helped by gunsA better plot and dialog would have done a lot more."filming was also plagued by incessant creative interference from studio executives, who overruled many of Fincher's decisions and dictated a large part of production "

But still, it earned over $100M and was a financial success (if you believe wikipedia)